GW law student is not impressed by L Street cycle-track

These lanes need to be designed for bikers. They can’t be one-way. They can’t take over a lane once dedicated to drivers. They can’t give bikers a false sense of security while complicating traffic patterns.

I still think it's too early to really criticize the cycle-track, since it will take time for everyone to adjust to it, but what are Schneider criticisms?

In the first few blocks, the path runs between parked vehicles and a narrow driving lane. At some points, cars can park right in the lane itself on weekends.

It's true that the bike lane is a bit narrow at first, but the location between parked cars and all-traffic (not driving) lanes is pretty normal for bike lanes. Schneider doesn't seem bothered by bike lanes in the door zone - just this bike lane in the door zone.

These rods are not marked with orange reflecting material and are easy for unsuspecting drivers to miss at night.

This bike lane makes access more difficult. Along the stretch separated by these rods, 150 parking spots have been displaced, according to the Washington Examiner. Garbage collection and delivery to businesses is complicated, as the bike path separates the road from the curb.

He's all over the map here. He doesn't like the lane next to parking, but he also doesn't like the cycletrack with parking removed. I'm honestly not sure what would make him happy.

To make matters worse, drivers turning left must actually enter the bike path. But that defeats the purpose. Cars cross the bikers' lane, and then drive in it until they turn left. Mere white lines drawn in the ground – not physical barriers – keep these cars only inches from bikers.

As long as drivers are going to turn left, at some point they have to enter the bike path. That's physics, so the question is where do you want that to happen. If he were arguing for the intersection, that would at least make sense, but he seems to be arguing never - and that doesn't. Also, the cars are not in the bike lane once they cross it, they are to the left of it. And as for only have paint to separate - that is the norm in the city. It would be great to have more separation, but it's hardly malpractice to not have it.

He also accuses the bollards (actually safe-hit flex posts. Personally, I think bollards should refer to more solid structures - like the security bollards around the Capitol - in keeping with the maritime bollards the word refers to, but it appears that I'm losing that battle) of "protruding awkwardly" from te road's surface, whatever that means. How would their protruding be less awkward?

He also seems to be bothered by it's one-wayness

After a bike trip downtown, returning to campus is made difficult by the one-way path....These lanes need to be designed for bikers. They can’t be one-way

But if he thinks the current facility is too complex, what does he think will happen with a two-way path. Besides, the addition of the L Street cycle-trakc really has had no impact on going west, which is just as easy or difficult as was before the cycle-track was installed. He later complains that they can't go in just one direction, seemingly unaware that an M Street cycletrack will soon go in the other direction.

And his argument gets more confused when he describes what they should be,

Instead, they need to be physically offset from the road and given their own traffic lights.

They can’t take over a lane once dedicated to drivers.

Ok, so where does the space come from then?

Finally, Schneider appears to be upset about the lack of facilities on GW campus.

This city needs to make biking easier, and bike paths ought to service the many college campuses around the area, particularly GW. It is unconscionable that 23rd Street and Pennsylvania Avenue do not have bike paths. These central arteries service a campus of nearly 20,000 students. Students certainly bike to school – try finding a Capital Bikeshare bike on campus in the evening.

They need to be built throughout the city, especially on GW's campus.

But he also thinks that a path across Washington Circle is going to be a good bike facility (I don't. Just ride the circle and leave the path to pedestrians).

I don't want to make it sound like the cycle-track is above criticism. But this article came off as particularly harsh and ill-informed (always a bad combination). There were many difficult decisions to make in creating (or not) this facility and certainly reasonable people will disagree with the choices DDOT made, but I think on balance this is a good one and will likely find many more people praising it than criticizing it.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Allow me to summarize the article:"whaaa! they need to build things just for GW students because we're special!".

Road the cycle track for the first time today. Honestly,I could take it or leave it. My route had me making a left onto L,so going into the track was pretty convenient. But then I made a right on 14th,which would've been easier had I been in the right lane. So basically it'll be great for some people.and not so great for others,which is pretty much how life works.

I like the new cycle track, but there clearly is a learning curve to manage the zones of green stripy peril. Also, it seems that at 23rd & L, it has been reclaimed as a police vehicle parking lot. Long term, I hope the CCT and the L/M cycle-tracks eventually are connected in a safe and user-friendly way.

But the L Street Cycle Track is like the Champs-Freaking-Élysées compared to the 14th St. bike lanes. It's sad, really. Above Columbia Heights, the 14th St. lanes are just eroding away. Below U St., they are so totally consumed with construction equipment, fencing, vehicles, steel plates, potholes, parked trucks, and other insane obstacles that they are close to unusable. It's too bad, because a huge and amazingly diverse array of bike riders use those lanes.

I personally prefer a true mixing zone to the crossover zones. While bikes should be able to pass cars stopped while waiting to make a left turn, we don't need cars passing bikes within the mixing zone. But this design is still better than the left-hook approach.

My main concern is that the left-most through lane needs big arrows pointing straight to help discourage left-hook turns from people who neglected to merge into the crossover zone.

Quite frankly, I almost think it would be easier to run the direction of the track opposite to the flow of traffic. The tricky part would be reverse crossing with green and folks trying to mix over to turn left, but maybe it makes it easier for them to actually realize bikes are there. The last time I took it I was nearly taken out by a motorist who couldn't figure it out and didn't bother to look right at all.

Improved signage (a sign along the curb halfway down the street is not helpful, particularly when we have so many idiot tourists driving around the city looking at everything else but signs) and at least a big arrow as Jim T pointed out (I've seen so many left hook turns here by dumb drivers).

I am pleased that they placed the whatever you want to call them at the entrances and exits to the lanes as some folks had been driving down the entire thing thinking they were like the K St utility lane things.